Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, planning and zoning board. Go ahead and call the role. Tony Gray here. Patrice Petrick here. Bob Cifret here. James Wilton here. John Rinders here. Charles Lewis here. Heather Kuffki. I'll note Miss Kuffky's absence for the record. And Yandic here. Thank you very much. Thank you, Rachel. We got any announcements? Oh, we're going to do the pledge first. Please stand for the pledge. To the flag of the United States of America to the standice.

All right. Now, announcement. No official announcement, but we do have Sorry, Rachel Barry, zoning official. For the record, we do have a request from the agent for the third item on the agenda if that could be moved up um to be heard before the um ordinance amendments. Right. Is that what you're saying? That is correct. Okay. Uh oh, yeah, I see Jerry there. Yeah, I was going to do that anyhow in case they were here, but I didn't see her come in. Uh yeah, as as my prerogative, we'll move that up right now. So, so what we're doing, we're going to the vested rights issue, which is the third thing on our

vested rights 2022, a request by Don B Construction property owner for initial determination vested rights under chapter 27 of our code. And go Rachel.

Good afternoon board. Rachel Barry, zoning official for the record. And so, as right into the record, the application number here that we are hearing is VR012025. The properties in question are 297 East Virginia Avenue and 407 Wood Street. All right. Had to make sure I was on the right slide. So since this is the first time this form of application has come before any of the boards, it's gone before DRC and is now coming before the planning commission. I want to make sure that we first just run through the eligibility and the criteria for approval. So to be eligible to apply for an initial vested rights determination, um the applicant must show that the act of a government entity has inordinately burdened or negatively impacted their ability to develop the property. Number two, the property owner has made substantial good faith investments. And number three, the property at issue have lawful entitlements at the time of the regulatory change. And as far as the criteria, substantial good faith investment showing the applicant has made significant financial or material commitments. Reasonable reliance showing that they reasonably relied on regulations that were existing at the time. uh governmental entity action impact um explaining what the government entity did and how it affected them and lastly public interest consideration showing that recognition of the vested rights would not cause any significant harm to public health or safety. All right. As for the location, there was a error in the staff report on page four of 16 of the staff report. Um, let me back up a page first. Page three of 16, number four, down at the bottom of the page. Um,

page 73 overall. Okay, that's a lot easier to find. Yeah, got it.

When the description of the abuing uses was drafted, I was looking at the properties across the street. So the actual ab budding uses um the property is located across East Virginia from Sunshine Learning Academy across Wood Street from vacant lots abuing vacant lots to the south and St. Mark's Missionary Baptist Church to the rear of the property. So just to make sure that I that I clarified that part. Uh so the properties are located directly on the corner of East Virginia and Wood Street. The previous zoning designation was TPG NT which stands for the Traditional Plorda overlay neighborhood transition district and currently the property is owned city center. Uh so formerly the zoning designation allowed for a mixture of uses um residential some transitional commercial uses and now the city center zoning district does not allow those residential uses. So a little bit of background, the owner did meet with staff multiple times to discuss the development. Um there is design studio audio. So they they absolutely have met with staff multiple times. Um the zoning designation as mentioned was neighborhood transition and when the code changed in July and went back to city center, the proposed rowhouse is no longer permitted in that district. So, as for the process, chapter 27 of the code, um the application gets filed with the planning director and then goes to the DRC. Um that happened earlier this month. When did it go to DRC? In November and they voted unanimously to find that they had established a claim of vested rights. Um after you all

discuss and make a recommendation that will go to council which is tenatively scheduled for January 14th and that is all I have and the applicant and agent are here if you have questions for them as well before you leave there's any questions here from our board question uh no just I I appreciate the correction just you just on the wrong corner

correct perspective anybody um uh I had one other question and mine was on timing and I couldn't find anywhere in the code that for develop shall be vested for five years from the date of approval. So I was wondering how you came up with five years because where I come from typically it's 24 months or 36 months and you know in other words if you're going to build it build it you know you get after it and you get it done. I want to see development I, you know, I'm certainly completely opposed to the Charlie Brown Lucy thing here because that's what it looked like to me. Um, the way they came, they met with city staff and they did everything they were supposed to do and then all of a sudden they can't build it because they changed. Well, I'm not going to pull the football away. I don't I don't want to do that, but I just want to keep them I have thought that 36 months would have been a reasonable time in order to to do that and um that was going to be my suggestion.

Absolutely. And so yes, there are some recommended conditions from staff. We have not confirmed yet with the applicant or agent that they are in agreeance with those conditions. So we will need to discuss those as well. Um the five years was a general time frame. There isn't really anything in particular um that it was based off of, but other than you know, there's certain changes that are made that someone can have five years to appeal. Um so I just went with that as a recommendation. Um I wouldn't be opposed to it. Um, but we also would need to make sure I I would want there

I rely on city staff a lot because they're very thorough and they're very good and if Rachel was to say to me I would lean more towards five than three then I would lean more towards Rachel. Otherwise, I'm just giving my best swag. The swag is a scientific law as gas because I couldn't I couldn't find anything in the code that said, you know, typically this is the standard for five years. There was no time restrictions or limits on it. And that's what I was looking I'm glad you're looking that up. That's good. Any other questions from the board?

Okay, you're up. Good afternoon. Jerry Waxler with the McCory Law Firm. I'm a council with the McCory Law Firm. At the outset, my client would have no objection to three years. They were moving full speed ahead toward obtaining the permits and developments when they crashed into the wall that is called the repealed codes. And so, three years would be more than adequate for them to be able to start and I believe complete construction for any unforeseen circumstances. My client Don B is requesting a vested rights determination for the property located at the corner of Virginia Avenue and Wood Street behind St. Mark's Church. There are four criteria that you have to consider for a vested rights request. The first is a substantial good faith investment. Don B met with Mitchell Austin and Lisa Hanning who were then employees of the community development department or zoning and community development in June 27th of 2024. At that time, the new comprehensive plan, the one that's still in effect, had been approved. It was not yet in effect because when it was approved, it wasn't to go in effect until the LDRs were adopted. But that that laid out the framework of where development was going to go. And it talked about the increased densities. It talked about the different types of housing, the missing middle, all those types of things. At that meeting, Donby was encouraged by staff to consider a rowhouse form of development. Row House was not allowed under the old codes, now the resurrected codes, but it was allowed or was in in the city zoning staff's estimation was something that was absolutely allowed under the codes, the LDRs that were going to go before very shortly going to go before city council for approval. Don B clos closed on the property. It was under contract at the time of that meeting. They closed on that property following that meeting at a cost of over $112,000. Shortly thereafter, the city council did

approve the LDRs and the previously approved comp plan became effective and that increased the density on the property and permitted row houses as a permitted use. Pursuant to the direction received at the meeting and the adoption of those 2024 LDRs, Don B hired engineers, surveyors, and draftsmen and presented the proposed row houses to staff again at a meeting on February 13, 2025. At that meeting, the need for replatting was then discussed because the property lots won't accommodate the number of units that they're going to be putting in. Row houses are individually owned but with common walls, so zero lot line, individually own. Donby then hired someone to help start with the plotting process. They had a legal description for the five lot configuration prepared. They also finalized their architectural plans and their floor plans. In total to date, Donby has spent $294,510.81 on engineering, platting surveys, platting surveys, water bills, developers fees, estimators, project coordination, administrative and land costs. We believe that is a substantial good faith investment in this project. The second criteria is reasonable reliance showing that the applicant's investment was made in justifiable reliance on regulations existing at the time that they were undertaking uh this reliance. Donby purchased a property on August 23rd 2024. As we said the current comprehensive plan had been approved was not yet in effect. They met with staff staff encouraged them to row houses in anticipation of the LDRs being adopted and the uh comp plan becoming effective. Um the comprehensive plan categories the property as traditional neighborhood. Policy 1.14.5 of the comp plan provides a density of 25 units per acre for traditional neighborhood lands and state that that these lands are quote specifically for accommodating a unique mix of single

family and multif family housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, cottage courts, small garden and courtyard apartments and town homes which is another word for rowouses. So they were relying on the language that had already been approved when they went through this process. land development regulations have to be made consistent within one year of being adopted. So they knew that within one year there were going to be LDRs that would be consistent with that language in the comprehensive plan. And in fact those LDRs as they indicated were approved very shortly after they closed on the purchase. Given the language of the adopted comprehensive plan, the language of the proposed and subsequently adopted LDRs, the requirement that the LDRs have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and staff's encouragement for rowhouse development on the site, it was justifiable for Donb to purchase a property and to move forward after that purchase with the surveying, engineering, architectural, site planning, and planning of the property. The third requirement is governmental entity action. You have to show that an act of the governmental entity is inordinately burdened or negatively impacted the previously approved development. The proposed rowhouse development, including the density and lot sizes of the proposed replat, is a permitted use under the previously approved 2024 comprehensive plan and LDRs, still the current um comprehensive plan, but now no longer permitted under the existing LDRs. Staff believes that with city council's repeal of the 2024 LDRs, the proposed development is no longer permitted. For Don B, the city's council action has eliminated the type, density, and the form of development that was approved under the previous LDRs and created an inordinate burden by rendering its investment in surveying, engineering, architectural, and site planning and planning effectively worthless. The fourth requirement is public interest consideration, showing that recognition of vested rights not

cause significant harm to public safety, health or welfare. Recognition of Don B's vested right to develop the rowouses will not harm public safety, health, or welfare. To the contrary, the comprehensive plan, still in effect today, contains the following policy, policy 1.1.3.3. The city will work with local organizations and consistently update land development regulations to ensure the creation of a diverse mix of infill housing that may include more affordable types that align with workforce needs in Pontagorta. Indeed, these rowouses are considered part of that missing middle that was so often spoken about as they talked about the new LVRs, which continues to be spoken about. We have affordable housing, we have higherend housing. What we lack is that missing middle. We have that in apartments. You're starting to see more apartments in the city. But in terms of individual homes, that's your missing middle. That's the need that this seeks to address. Throughout the process of adopting the comprehensive plan in the 2024 LDRs, the need for missing middle housing was repeatedly emphasized by staff, council, and the community. Vesting Don B with the right to develop missing middle housing in the city of Panagorta would assist and help the public health, safety, and welfare. Based on the criteria for vested rights and the information that's been presented to you today, we ask that a determination be made that Don has a vested right to develop low house town homes on its property. This um has been you recommended approval that has been recommended by staff and was unanimously recommended by the DRC committee. I'm available to Thank you very much for your time and for moving us up.

Anybody have any questions? No. No. It sounds like I mean they've made a substantial investment in the project. Yeah, they have to have just one midstream. I I I agree. They meet all four criteria. I thought they did. How do you guys feel? You okay with that? Are they in agreement with all the are they in agreement with the conditions that staff had all five of them and with the to three years. On the fifth one, there were five recommendations that staff had the fifth recommendation moving it from five to two years. Although we we agree with all the conditions and with the change from from five to three years.

Okay, there's no more questions. I'll entertain a motion and uh along with the conditions. Anybody want to do that? Uh I I'll make the motion to accept the uh the proposal as written with the condition that they move it to three years from five with all the conditions with the amendment to the the fifth condition. Yes. Condition from five years to three. Is there a second? I'll second. All those in favor of approving the vested rights with conditions with one amendment from three years to get their permit uh to commence permit to commence. They mean by that. All those in favor say I. I post.

Thank you guys. Appreciate you.

Thank you so much. No, we haven't done this yet. We've just jumped right over. Let them get out of here. Um, so we do have some minutes that we have to approve. It's in your your thing. This is from July of this year. And um, are there any additions or corrections to the minutes you guys looked at? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. So move.

Second. Do I hear a second? A second. That's been approved. It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes from July 28th, 2025. All those in favor say I. It's approved unanimously. All right. What else?

Yeah. You know what? Well, that actually was not quasi judicial. So with the vested rights application, the first public hearing is when it gets to city council. Okay. So yeah, it's been approved by staff the DRC and now city. Okay. So next we have the legislative u public hearings. One is the um the review of the process of the development and the other one is code enforcement. I know there's one person here to speak on code enforcement. Can we move that one up too? I'm fine with that. Is that okay with you guys? Sure.

Okay. Um, so let's go to ZAO5205 proposed amendment to chapter 9A code enforcement of the funord code to establish requirements procedure for a special mag. Good afternoon again.

Rachel Barry, zoning official for the record. And so the proposed ordinance here um we are not dissolving the code board. We are not trying to get rid of the code board. Uh there was a workshop um code enforcement workshop with city council in September and That was one of the items that was mentioned as potential options in the future. Um so the draft language is only adding special magistrate along with code board. So you can have either or or we could have both. Um city council would determine whether they [clears throat] want to continue with codeboard or move to a magistrate or utilize both. Um, some options that have been discussed are, you know, your typical everyday code enforcement cases, go to the code board. And for those more lengthy um cases, you know, where the property owner just is not in contact with us or has not made any form of trying to correct the issue, maybe we take those to the batch. So here for discussion, recommendations, comments,

any questions. You can go, Chuck. Okay. You I start with you because I know you always have questions. Go.

So I I've got several questions. Uh I like the approach that it's uh the magistrate is separate from the boards. I think that should be a mag should be an attorney who is familiar with property rights and land use as their main source of their law background. Uh I I I think that that would be probably the best and then is drafted and appointed by city council. and the city council is going to have to approve the budget. And then the other thing that I didn't see in there was there was no recommendation for if you have like an habitual problem, someone who is consistently in the court, there's there's no recourse to recoup the law expenses. How does that happen? I mean, there's I didn't see anything in there for the person back and says, "Well, we don't have um uh the ability to we're just not going to do it because you don't you can't make Well, the manager says, you know, yes, we can, but there's a cost associated with that. Who pays that?"

So, right now, um with code cases, we do include um administrative costs. Um so, all of our postage and those sorts of items, those get included in the fines that we request the code board issue. Um, as far as items going to circuit court and then coming back, typically those are not included in a board order because the the court's system would be separate from the code board. But, um, what we are going to start doing um is we for those types of cases just charging them the the posting just isn't sufficient. And so most likely with the next um fee schedule that we adopt, we're going to include a a general hourly rate um for time for inspections and going back and back and back and back 10, 15, 20 times same property. So we would include those hours in there on the lean as well.

So we have field cost. How about magistrate cost? Well, I'm getting to that. We have field costs, which is the field inspector. Then we have city staff which is different. Then we had the administrative cost which is the you know the mailing postage everything else that goes along with it. And now we have the legal cost which should be a definition all to itself as to what that cost is. So now we're going to define four areas of how we're going to build the person that is being fined. I will have to look into that last part. Um I do not know if we can include it or if we can't. That's a conundrum.

I'll have to check with the uh with the city attorney's office. Okay. So, I understand they right now they they also have two attorneys. The mag if they use a mag they'll have an attorney plus the board will have an attorney. Not the board, excuse me. The prosecutor will be the city attorney. So, you'll have two attorneys there too. The prosecutor is always a city attorney unless he unless somebody else does it. So, you have two There's two attorneys at every one of these meetings and they will continue to do that. Correct. Correct. We with the code board. Uh we do provide an attorney council for the board. So they have their legal counsel and the city has our separate legal counsel because it is like it's like a trial and jury.

I know. And it's open to the public. I get that, you know, and that's the way I want it, you know, but Rachel is going to look into if we can include the cost of the magistrate because that that's going to be your most substantial cost you have. That's a good suggestion. Anybody else? That'll give us questions.

Um, okay. We we don't have any member of the public wishing to speak and come forward. I have way more than three minutes worth of information here, but I will try to condense. Uh, so I've spent spent nine years on the planning commission. I've spent four years on the code review board so far. Anyway, my name is Joe Ko. I'm a resident of Ponaga. I currently serve as the vice chair of the uh code enforcement board. Our current chair, oh by the way, is a JAG, retired JAG, and retired 20-year federal magistrate. I also have five years experience as a military magistrate, and that's just an example of the current experience on our code board. Um, this is at least the third, probably the fourth time I've been down this road. I approached at least two city councils in times past about the idea of going to a magistrate. Since this time I have spent hours with Rachel on this subject before it got to the uh the workshop and we are continuing um as we had a bit of a discussion on certain aspects of this although not the uh the actual um uh ordinance proposal. So this isn't new and I've seen this from about every angle you can think of. In the course of doing that I came to a question. What is the city really trying to fix? What's broken? The process is broken. The system is broken. The magistrate or the code board is only the top of the process. They're the adjudicator. They're who makes the decision after all these things have

occurred. The process is clogged by Florida law. And what the uh city staff has to go through. It is ownorous at best. And I don't know if any of you have ever seen it. That's the code enforcement process. This is the homeowner's guide to code enforcement. That's the process. That's going to be the process whether you've got a magistrate or a board. It doesn't matter. That's state law. Okay? And the code board is different from your board or any of the other boards in that it is established by state law. Section 162 of Florida code establishes the code board, the number of members, our absency policy, everything is set in state law. So there's only so much wiggle room in there. So um I always thought it would be more efficient to have a magistrate where you could just go right in. And I've come to realize that it really isn't. the system. What we need to do, and we can't in many ways, is fix the Florida law. The other is that they need more people on the staff that they don't have. We have a real problem around here with a perception of randomness and and how does this system work? And we can't fix it with just what we have here. And a magistrate's not going to fix it. A magistrate is just going to be somebody else. Um, one idea and I'm about to run out of time that was uh brought up by the city of Cape Coral and I've already talked to the city manager about this is the idea of volunteers. We have volunteer policemen.

Time out second, Josh. Yeah. Is everybody okay? Let him talk a little bit more. He's got the experience. Is nobody else here to speak? Are you here to speak on it? No. Okay. So, the only other person is Rachel and she's going to talk anyhow. So, yeah, let's give him a little more time. Go.

Okay. So, this came up a few months ago and I I talked to uh Dr. Riker about it. She was going to kind of, you know, run it up the flag pole. Cape Carl has the same problem. There was a big thing they did one night on the news and and they're having the same problem with code enforcement. Everybody has the same problem with code enforcement since the state changed the law that you cannot accept anonymous reports. Nobody wants to report anything. And you can't with five code enforcement officers even enforce the number of code infractions that that exist in a small town like Punagorta. Imagine something larger. So P uh Cape Carl was suggesting the idea of volunteers and it's a trying to find out if it's legal. We have volunteer policemen. They have limited authority and limited responsibility. We potentially could do something like that with code enforcement. Establish some sort of volunteer group who would not be the ones going out writing violations, but would go out, they would be trained, they would go out, they would take down the address of violation, they'd bring it back to the officers of code enforcement who are sworn and they would be the ones who would go out and do it. You know, there there's a lot of things out there and I'm more than willing to I spent this weekend going over the draft and I will try to get together with Rachel some more on that. One other interesting thing that if you go back through the draft, it splits up the difference between violations and citations. The fines are different. The process is different. How it is all done is different. You get into an issue of enforcability. It's like when the city says you can't water your lawn, try to enforce that. That's absolutely unenforcable because it's a code violation. The first thing the person does, the code officer does, is go to the person's house and say, "You need to stop watering your lawn." And then you go back another time and

say, "You really need to stop watering your lawn." And then you can give them a violation. And then and it just rolls on and on. But that's the law. That's what the officer has to do. So you think a citation could be quicker. It's not. It's not really. And it is only limited to things that pose a serious threat to safety, health, and welfare. So, you can't just go up to somebody and give them a citation and find them $25 for watering their lawn. It doesn't meet any of those criteria. And having a magistrate isn't going to make it any quicker because you still got the same time restrictions going to it. It's it's it's a redundant process. You would end up having two you would have code enforcement trying to serve two masters and and code board can go through things just as quickly as any magistrate if there's a support structure to bring it there. We had an agenda last Friday at our meeting of 10 items and we cleared every one of those items during that meeting. Yes, there are some that get strut out. We never get to 10 or 20, you know, uh we have a few where it involves an estate given to an estate to an estate and it's a hard time tracking them down. But part of that again is the state law that says where and what code officers can do in terms of of looking up and tracking down the actual owner of the property to serve them with it. You know, the number of times we hear they mail it because the law says you mail it by certified

uh receipt, nobody gets it, you get it back time and time again, you know. So, can I stop because you I think you're assuming we know a lot more about code enforcement. We do. We don't. So, I I I know we can't change the state law. So, that is we have to accept that right now.

We can work with our legislators. We can work whatever we have to do. Tell us how volunteers can help. I don't I don't quite go out, find the address, trying to find the people, the volunteer could go out and find the violations and I've had we have this talk all the time. You drive around town and you just go, "Oh, geez." And and you watch the same house day after day, month after month, and it's not the rat house yet, but it's close because nobody wants to because you can't be anonymous to call about your neighbor. So, they won't do it. So, you have to go find it. And it's We cannot by law. by law. Well, then what what are we doing? By law, code board members Oh, the volunteers can do.

The volunteers can. And this is one thing our board attorney, uh, Dan Lewis, excellent guy, uh, and and part of our annual training. Due process comes into effect in everything we do because, okay, at least y'all are on a board. You've got experience serving on a city board. No one on city council has ever served on a city board or commission. They're clueless to a large degree when it comes to a lot of this because when it comes to the uh uh code enforcement because we are a stateapp appointed board and we are a quai judicial entirely our entire hearing is quai judicial and yes the public is there but no the public cannot speak.

It is just like a courtroom. You can't just stand up and say I've got an opinion on this. No. And that was reinforced uh just last Friday where we had um a citizen want to talk on one of our cases. We said no and afterwards you can go out and talk to them you know expartate if you would outside but you cannot let a third party you know just stand up and talk uh during a meeting. So it takes a little bit more understanding of how the board works how you have to comply with everything. Um, the other big difference um, uh, between a board and a magistrate, and this was brought up by a couple of people, I think including Rachel, when you have a magistrate, they're an unknown person. You come in and you got whatever kind of problem. Um, and when it comes to things that qualify for citation, the irreparable and irreversible damage clause, you can find a person up to $5,000 for first offense. Now, if you go in and you cut down a tree in your yard or something, they can find you $5,000 for that. We, the board, can find you $5,000 for that. Uh, if you go before a magistrate, you're counting on one person. If you go before the board, you're counting on seven citizens of Punagorta who may have a little bit more empathy for your situation once you get a chance to explain it. And we've done that before with people, you know, listening to their case on a citation and, you know, the fine reflecting it. And actually, on every single fine that we issue, we have to consider those kinds of things. Um, and um and and fines sometimes seem too light to begin with, but they have a way of building up. And if you become a repeat offender, you can go up to $500 a day. So Joe, can I interrupt? Do you do you favor a magistrate or are you saying you favor

the the way it's set up now? I kind of favor the way it's running now, but I think the city needs more support in its code enforcement branch. You need more help on the other side, not it's the process. It's the system that's broken. Like I said, the adjudicator could be the board or it can be a magistrate. It's the support to get that information to get it to them and get it in a timely manner. Okay. As quickly as they can because just the process of mailing a certified letter if the owner is listed as living in Arizona. Well, the mag does a does the DR does the code enforcement board because they're seven does that slow anything down? No.

No. Okay. So, the magistrate is not going to help anything as far as getting it done faster. The only thing it slows down is getting volunteers to volunteer for the board just like any other board. Yeah. You know, keeping keeping our members and being able, you know, not sweating whether you're going to have a quorum. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Questions. Come on. How's the that summary of the code process? Can you pass that around? Sure. She's probably got a few. Yeah. I'd love to see that. Well, I saw how many. There's a lot of change command there. Sure is. That's quagmar. That is, but that's but that's state law. That's something 99% of that state law.

Yeah. We can't do anything about that. We can maybe as as Jerry just volunteer, you know, Florida has a long history of protecting the homeowner's rights. Yeah. And so the homeowner, you know, being a jerk of a neighbor isn't a crime, but if you're, you know, if it's your neighbor, Yeah. it's a crime to you. Any other questions for Joe? I have just a question here. Really? Sounds like the get citizens group up and running. Doesn't that have to go before city council? Oh, yeah. Yeah. If you have a volunteer group.

So, so the application really should be to enable a group of citizens to act and be you've got you've got a proposal already. You've got an ordinance. You you can't just change the ordinance. That would have to come as a proposal and it have to be coordinated through staff to come up. That's just an idea that we heard. It's just something that's just talk. Does that do you want to have a workshop with that? Try to work it out or what do you want to do? I think they have

reach for the record. So, we actually have discussed that um in our office and we're going to schedule a meeting first of January um to discuss bringing in volunteers um so they would work, you know, potentially evenings, weekends, uh pulling signs that are not in the right place, taking down addresses where violations are noted and passing those back to staff. Uh it's hard for the officers that we have to go out and be proactive in their entire area. Um because, you know, they have their inspections they have to follow up on. They have lot program. They have to go inspect those lots. So being proactive for those officers is is tough bringing the volunteers. How many people do you have? We have four code officers

and a supervisor. I mean I like the idea committee, but I think they should have to go through a training course. That would work. They would have to get all the code familiarity, you know, learn all that kind of stuff. They can't just go out and whatever just like police volunteers. do everything except right of violation or give you a gun. That's right. Another quick question. Is there a certain code violation that we find more frequently in place occurring that I mean is it mow your grass grass and dirty roof? I was just curious what you know when we talk about violations what and now two two axle trailers seems to be a real popular one.

Well after the hurricanes the roofs were a big problem right? When you have an open structure, that is a code violation. After the hurricane, there's a lot of latitude shown, but unfortunately, there are people who still have not repaired basic things after the hurricane. Yeah. And you can't find all of them. I mean, you just won't. So, what we're going to deal with today is approving this a magistrate in lie of it. That's not going to help anything, but that's that you drafted all this up. Well, it wouldn't necessarily be in lie of it. would just give us the option of doing one or the other or both. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Joe. And I think you got a pretty good system. You just need

more help. We're going to work on that. When is that workshop? There isn't a workshop scheduled, but staff is going to schedule a meeting to discuss further all of the details that go into it. Um, so myself, Nick, we'll probably have someone from HR there so we can talk about liability or insurance and whether they're going to drive city vehicles or if we're going to put a city magnet on their vehicle. So, there's lots of little details that we'll have to work out. Thank you.

Okay. Where do we get one? Yes, we do have some of those in our office. Um, we are located on the third floor of the city annex building, 126 Harvey Street. Well, the one you can't get in. We um the elevator works. You can get in now. And on the website, this is also on the website. Yeah. Yes. And I also wonder just as a suggestion when we are when we you know when we sign up for this role, maybe perhaps including this training, you not not in depth, but this is new to me and I I think this is important for each one of us.

Well, there's a whole section. There's a lot to it. There's a lot awful lot to it. I'm just invited to attend one of our meetings. A high level. Not when do you meet? Well, you meet a certain time each month. So, the the schedule this year uh has changed to the third Thursday. Thursday. Thursday. What time? Uh 9:00 a.m. And here right here. That's That's correct. Always check and make sure sometimes Tuesday or Friday. We had to move some some scheduling around with with other stuff. It's not fitting good with some of you. That's all right. Okay. Any other questions? I don't think so. Everybody good? Good. Jump. Okay.

Thank you so much, Jim. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Appreciate you taking your time. Um any any more discussion on on this issue on ZAO52025? What are we trying to approve? We're approving all of this. If you let's see we're approving the change of language that adds a magistrate in lie of or in addition to there's a whole section on it. So that's another option. Yeah. has another option. That's what we're right. But I think the option should include the possibility of forming a volunteer.

Well, what they're saying is they they already got that on their and they're going to do that. Rachel says they're going to put that staff's going to do it. I mean, so with the uh with the volunteers since they aren't necessarily a decision maker or a board, we wouldn't put that into the code of ordinances. Um but we would more so have an internal policy. Would it be all right to add that as a condition or a recommendation. Absolutely. Okay. Yeah, we can do that. All right. So, where's our language for this? Do we have our language? Will we add a language again? We don't have these.

I don't know. [laughter] Sorry. I don't I never put them on the agenda, so I'm not sure where they're located. Who Who does Who prepares this? Who does this like this front page? Who does that? The front page. Who does this? Who does this? This agenda. Who does that? So, the staff, so myself and our executive assistants, we upload all of the different agenda items, but there's some other stuff behind the scenes, I'll say, um, that isn't necessarily right where we can see it and change it.

Okay. Well, what you know, we need to have that language on here because it's without that language, it's a little difficult to make our motions and that's something um we would like to have. So, I think I don't I don't know. I don't have any stuff with me. Does anybody have an old

guy?

Yeah. Well, it used to be on the back. That's Who do I talk to, Rachel, about that? Do you I will talk with the um the city clerk's office and figure out where that different information is and make we get that back on to the agenda. Yeah, it's so otherwise where we are usually on the back of the front page agenda page like third.

I got more paper to do. All right, let me just see. I got a hand from one of my patriots here.

That's on here. I don't have it on my packet. Oh yeah. Okay. Take it back. It is here. I looked at the wrong page. I looked on the back of this page. Okay. Let's see. Um based right here where it says based on the read is this the same language we need for this consistent plan.

Yeah that's what is this exactly the language you need. So we just have to put

based on the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing for item Z5 ZA05 2025. I find that this request is consistent with the city of Pagora comprehensive plan and move that we recommend the city council approval with conditions this request and the condition would be that it's not really a condition. We recommend that they look into having volunteers to help the process. Trained volunteers

trained volunteers. the recommendation that city council move forward with trained volunteers to assist in the code of enforcement. Okay, second motion and second. All those in favor say I. I passes unanimously. A little rocky there, but we got it done. All right. So now we got one more thing to do here today that is the process which is

okay the process this is on the ZA5205 proposed amendments. This is chapter 404 2025 proposed city board development regulations chapter [laughter] 26 related to the review process of develop and other items that require the same level of review and interdep departmental coordination. Okay, Rachel.

Good afternoon. Rachel Barry, zoning official for the record. So, what we are discussing today is the process of review for development applications that are filed. Um, so this would not be uh zoning changes, variances, special exceptions. This would only be basically site plan approval. Um the current members of the DRC which is the development review committee includes urban design uh the building department, utilities, public works, fire, police. Uh so we have a representation of all basically all city departments on DRC. Um the current process when a complete application is filed it gets distributed to all the different city departments. Um they review the project, they review the site plan, they submit their comments back to the executive assistants in our office um and we gather all of those either on a staff report or just in one collective document and give that to the applicant. Uh typically the staff report is not ready until two weeks if that uh prior to the DRC meeting. Sometimes we don't get the agenda out until a week before the meeting. So the applicant doesn't necessarily have a compiled list of corrections they need to make until a week before the DRC meeting. Once they go to DRC, they have 90 days to fix everything on their site plan and get it in compliance with all of the conditions that we have listed. If they don't, they either have to pay to um submit a request to continue and extend the application or it just it's considered withdrawn um if they don't make that timeline. So, one aspect of the change is due to staff efficiency. um being able to sit down all at on table, discuss these items um and kind of take out that delay of getting the staff report to the

applicant just a week before the DRC meeting. The second aspect of it is timelines. So we have timelines listed in the land development regulations and we also have timelines listed in Florida statute for development orders. So in our code, in the city code, when an application is filed, we have 10 days to deem it complete. That's your job.

Correct. Um so I go through the application and make sure all the eyes are dotted, tees are crossed, everything is there that we need for the review. Um so both in Florida statute and in the city code, that's 10 days. [clears throat] Following that, Florida statute says that the city has 30 days to provide all comments and then the applicant has 30 days to provide updates and then we have 30 days to review and they have 30 days to update so on and so forth. Um, however, there's deadlines for items that don't require a public hearing. Florida statute requires that we finalize that application within 120 days unless the applicant is willing to wait for those. So when we get into the application is filed, staff review, go to DRC, that could take four to six weeks. Then they have 30 days to update. We have 30 days to review. They have 30 days to update. We're already past 120 days. Florida statute. If you don't meet those timelines, you have to start refunding the money. If we finalize it within 30 days after that 120day deadline, we owe them 50% refund. If it is 31 days or more, 100% of the application fee is due back to the applicant. So that is one of the major reasons of why we are trying to make it more efficient so that we don't run into situations where we are pleading with an applicant to wave the timelines um you know to give us an opportunity to make sure that we have everything reviewed. So that is my uh my overall summary of the updates and I can answer any questions you have.

The process so the beginning of the process is going to stay the same. The applicant files the application with us. Uh we review for completeness and sufficiency distributed to all of the staff members for review. That's 10 days still right.

Correct. And at that point, the timelines haven't kicked in yet as far as the 120 days. The 120 days starts once it's deemed complete. Once it's deemed complete, we send it out for staff review. Um, all of the staff will submit their comments. They'll have between 14 to 21 days to turn those around so that we still have at least a week or two to gather everything and get to the applicant. When we send that to the applicant, we will ask them to review the comments and let us know whether they would like to meet with city staff to discuss the comments. Um if they do, we'll schedule a meeting with them similar to how we have design studio. Um the audio is recorded for those meetings. Um so we would either either do that or if they can't fall into a design studio appointment, we would find another day and time that works to meet with them. Um after that, they have their 30 days for review, 30 days for us to review so on and so forth.

So, so, so what is the big change here? That's I'm trying to understand that is the big change the DRC meeting in in in the public because it's sunshine earlier than it was before you you're forcing everything. How are you how are you saving the time? So, we would not have to wait until the DRC meeting. Um, so pretty much after that initial three-w week period max, we would have everything to the applicant full discussion instead of having, you know, the the three weeks and then getting the agenda uploaded and then a week out and then the DRC meeting and it starts to cut into the the 120 days.

So you're just you're you're getting everything solved before the DRC meeting. Correct. The DRC meeting is got to be in the sunshine. So that's why you have a public hearing at that time, but staff can meet and staff can talk together because it's not a committee or a commission like ourselves or any other group. So it's not a public hearing. Um but it is a public meeting in the sense of you know it's it's posted the public can come. They can attend right

and it is a committee. Um as far as the legality of the sunshine law I I don't know for certain 100% one way or the other. Um, but I do like to play it safe. So, um, so that is another aspect of it as well is for us to be able to talk to each other and not have one set of staff in design studio, another set of staff in DRC, another set of staff to review and talk to each other about things. It just it gets way too muddled. And and what you have here you think will alleviate a lot of those problems?

I do believe so. So, the uh DRC would not be disbanded. it would not be dissolved. All of the other items that go to DRC would still go to DRC. Um it would just be this one form of AC application. The development plan application would not go to the DRC meetings. Question. Has there been any instances where the city had money? Not yet. Uh we did have one um applicant agree to wave timelines.

I don't know. I think them getting in a position where they're proactive rather than reactionary. I think it's a good idea. That's what we're doing. That's what she's doing. And Rachel's drafted all so what we can do to help her. So, any other questions? Entertain a motion. So, move for adoption. Okay. I'll second that. Can you use Can you use this language? I'm going to give it to you right here. 04.

We have no conditions on this one. Right. Correct. Yeah. Okay. based on the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing for item 4 2025. I find that this request is consistent city comprehensive plan and move that we recommend the city council approval of this request. Uh do I hear a second? Second then move the second to approve this request uh for DAO4 2025. All those in favor say I.

Oppos? Okay. Got a lot of stuff done today. Um any board member comments? Dan, I'll start with you. I as the alternate I don't get it get a chance to sit in very often but to move the city ahead as we're doing I think it's great the gentleman who spoke he hit the nail on the head yeah he's lived it so it's great to be part of the game

well thank you glad to have you Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. Thank you for all. I agree. This is a lot of work. And you got it out way early. Thank you. Appreciate it. Meetings are journ.